The Courts Outline Potential Consequences for Misuse of AI in Litigation

On 29 July 2026, the President of the High Court issued a Practice Direction¹ setting out the Courts’ expectations regarding “the appropriate and responsible use” of GenAI tools in litigation. The Practice Direction provides guidance on how the parties can adhere to their obligations and makes clear that consequences will follow where there is inappropriate and unacceptable usage. This includes, potentially, adverse cost orders and striking out claims.  

This Practice Direction reminds parties engaging in litigation that they remain personally responsible for verifying content and must ensure its integrity. This is particularly the case for individuals providing affidavits or witness statements. These must be true and complete. The examples of misuse canvassed here range from deep fake material to the legal propositions attributed to cases and other source material.

A key reminder for employers and employees alike is that the parties to a dispute must be in a position on request to set out how they have used GenAI tools.

There are, in addition, now specific requirements to state in affidavits and expert reports that GenAI tools have not been used to generate substantive content.

The Direction specifically addresses unrepresented parties who also have obligations of candour and accuracy. They risk adverse legal costs orders, certain documents being disregarded, or in extreme instances their claim being struck out.

This Direction reflects an increasing trend of having to ensure transparency as to the use of AI and being held fully responsible where there is misuse. Court and tribunal directions on this issue are now commonplace, with challenges to accuracy of content generated and arguments made featuring in an increasing number of cases. We have written about this previously (see here) including applicable Labour Court guidance and how the Workplace Relations Commission is increasingly addressing the misuse of AI, including where claimants are unable to fully explain narratives provided and positions taken in relation to disputes.